The Fight Is At Your Doorstep: Who're You Standing For?

[DianeCourt]

Whoa whoa whoa. What Christian "right" is being trampled on by striking down sodomy laws which were being unequally enforced?

That is the most bizarre line I've ever heard.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

We're going to get a cite for that as well, I'm sure.

 

[Godzman]

Whoa whoa whoa. What Christian "right" is being trampled on by striking down sodomy laws which were being unequally enforced?

That is the most bizarre line I've ever heard.

i think when you can't have prayer at a football stadium, but you can have a speech supporting gays in the public arena, I think that is trampling, the sodomy case I am not for sure.

 

[draper]

i think a lot of us agree, even the thread starter

Then why aren't you gonig after after adulters, liars, robbers, masturbaters, people who have pre martitial sex, and so forth? Why do you go after gays so aggressively?

The way I see it is, is that you don't like gay people because you find them 'icky' 'abnormal' 'queer' 'sick' and 'disgusting' and hence use the Bible to justify your (so far unsuccessful) attempts at oppressing them.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

i think when you can't have prayer at a football stadium, but you can have a speech supporting gays in the public arena, I think that is trampling ...

Santa Fe was an establishment clause case, the latter a free speech issue. The government does not enjoy the same degree of "free speech" that you and I enjoy.

Next!

 

[draper]

i think when you can't have prayer at a football stadium, but you can have a speech supporting gays in the public arena, I think that is trampling, the sodomy case I am not for sure.

Well that'd be because the football game is a football game, and the gay support speech is a gay support speech. I'm sure if you booked a prayer session in the football arena they'd let you go pray all you want.

Football games=open to general public, and hence praying is inappropriate there.

Gay support rally=open to gay supporters, hence supporting gays is appropriate there.

 

[Godzman]

Then why aren't you gonig after after adulters, liars, robbers, masturbaters, people who have pre martitial sex, and so forth? Why do you go after gays so aggressively?

The way I see it is, is that you don't like gay people because you find them 'icky' 'abnormal' 'queer' 'sick' and 'disgusting' and hence use the Bible to justify your (so far unsuccessful) attempts at oppressing them.

i don't go after any agressivley, the only ones Jesus went agressively after was the religious hypocrites.

He loved the sinners and fed the poor and forgave sins.

 

[praying]

In a nutshell, if He didn't give us a memo on a particular change, a given Law still stands. This isn't meant to say that we must all keep Kosher, but it affirms passages like Leviticus 18:22.

and we are being selective in the passages becuase why????????

 

[Godzman]

i think when you can't have prayer at a football stadium, but you can have a speech supporting gays in the public arena, I think that is trampling ...

Santa Fe was an establishment clause case, the latter a free speech issue. The government does not enjoy the same degree of "free speech" that you and I enjoy.

Next!

a football stadium is a public place, thus a form a speech that would not be offensive to the audience can be given.

Both prayers and speeches endorsing homosexuality

I like free speech, the rest of the world seems not to like it to well

 

[DianeCourt]

i think when you can't have prayer at a football stadium, but you can have a speech supporting gays in the public arena, I think that is trampling, the sodomy case I am not for sure.

Those are incomparable for two reasons:

1. You're comparing two different fora.
2. Homosexuality is not a religion.

By pitting homosexuality against religion you're acting as though they're constitutionally the same thing; this isn't true. It's like Christians pitting science against religion and getting upset when only science is taught in school. They're just not comparable.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

... the only ones Jesus went agressively after was the religious hypocrites.

Aha, good point. Now we may be getting somewhere.

 

[kdet]

This thread is ridiculous. To the thread starter, you are no better then any gay person, and really by sitting here trying to oppress them, you're jeopardizing your place in Heaven.

No one is oppressing anyone on a message board.

 

[draper]

i don't go after any agressivley, the only ones Jesus went agressively after was the religious hypocrites.

He loved the sinners and fed the poor and forgave sins.

Well it seems to be the only sin you're campaigning against.

Like, why not start a petition to stop anyone who lies on a consistent basis from getting married.

Why not campaign to stop anyone who regularly has pre maritial sex from getting married?

You just personally dislike gays. So, you go after them with the Bible as your friend.

 

[Godzman]

Well that'd be because the football game is a football game, and the gay support speech is a gay support speech. I'm sure if you booked a prayer session in the football arena they'd let you go pray all you want.

Football games=open to general public, and hence praying is inappropriate there.

Gay support rally=open to gay supporters, hence supporting gays is appropriate there.

wait just one moment, politicians are uncomfortable talking about both subjects and that is a shame, Bush should be able to pray, and he should be able to give a speech supporting homosexuality (if he agreed with it).

Both are freedom of speech issues.

Dixie Chicks can say what they want to say, and so can I, and so can you, as long as it does no harm.

 

[draper]

No one is oppressing anyone on a message board.

The thread is calling for the opression of gays.

 

[Godzman]

Those are incomparable for two reasons:

1. You're comparing two different fora.
2. Homosexuality is not a religion.

By pitting homosexuality against religion you're acting as though they're constitutionally the same thing; this isn't true. It's like Christians pitting science against religion and getting upset when only science is taught in school. They're just not comparable.

so freedom of speech, pervades freedom of speech with religion, this is a truly sad situation

 

[draper]

wait just one moment, politicians are uncomfortable talking about both subjects and that is a shame, Bush should be able to pray, and he should be able to give a speech supporting homosexuality (if he agreed with it).

Both are freedom of speech issues.

Dixie Chicks can say what they want to say, and so can I, and so can you, as long as it does no harm.

What does Bush being able to pray have to do with being able to pray before a football game?

And if you go to a football game to pray...urgh.

 

[Godzman]

... the only ones Jesus went agressively after was the religious hypocrites.

Aha, good point. Now we may be getting somewhere.

I knew this all along, and I hold to it, sometimes in frustration I lash out, but that is not what I mean to do.

 

[Godzman]

Well it seems to be the only sin you're campaigning against.

Like, why not start a petition to stop anyone who lies on a consistent basis from getting married.

Why not campaign to stop anyone who regularly has pre maritial sex from getting married?

You just personally dislike gays. So, you go after them with the Bible as your friend.

I don't think you should use me, you you you. I know it is easy, but I am sure not all people who share your worldview, act like you

 

[Brother Christman]

I am this thread's starter and by speaking the truth, I do not believe I'm jeapordizing anything but the machinations of the wicked. "If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household?

Sociopath, you can nit pick and spin obscure turns of Constitutional law as it pleases you. Regardless, the SCOTUS, in striking down sodomy laws, has spit in the faces and upon the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who recognize homosexuality's evil nature. They've said that the alien views of a minority outweigh the rights of the majority to govern themselves.

there are people who still use drugs, and lie, and steal, and get drunk and are Christians, as long as they are striving to end the behaviour they are serving Christ.

And God may use them while they're here. Knowingly embracing sin, however, is a rejection of salvation. Deliberately doing that which offends God, particularly to the point of declaring it a lifestyle (and then causing others to stumble by spreading lies to the effect that God doesn't care), is an act of rebellion. This means no more protection from God's wrath (Hell) when they die. It doesn't matter how much good they've done while they were here.

Don't get me wrong, though: If they're trying to stop, that's not the same as knowningly, deliberately sinning. There's a great difference between a kleptomaniac who's honestly, earnestly repentent in his/her heart and someone who says "pfft - I'm just born this way" and, in effect, gives God the middle finger by declaring their conduct as somehow legitimate. Those who truly want to change will be saved. They have to trust in Him to make the change, though. It will not (and cannot) be done by/of themselves.